Chamber and committees

I am very grateful for that.

Thanks for that.

My final question is on something else that you mentioned in your opening remarks. You were asked in your remit to be bold in your conclusions and to say what needed to be done. As part of that, you recommended separating the SQA’s awarding function and its regulatory function. The University of Stirling has told the committee that the bill ignores that proposal and that that is a mistake. What is your view? If you agree with that comment, what should be done to this bill?

It is a very quick one, convener.

Good morning. The question is for Barry Black. My colleague Ross Greer asked whether this is the right time to have the bill, given that the rest of the reform agenda has perhaps not yet been bottomed out as fully as we might like. In your written submission, you said:

“This bill comes across as an attempt to protect the system as it currently is and prevent real and meaningful changes further down the road.”

Are you suggesting that the bill could be prejudicial to the further reform agenda?

Barry Black, I want to stick with you on that point and the answer that you just gave to John Mason. You have been quite outspoken about the bill, particularly with regard to the replacement for the SQA, going so far as to suggest that MSPs should reject the bill in its entirety. If that does not happen and this bill goes through largely as drafted, do you concede that it will nevertheless achieve something?

I will throw a question to Professor Priestley on the committees in a second but, before I do so, Barry Black, I want to ask you whether, if MSPs choose not to reject the bill and allow it to go forward, you have clear in your mind, say, three key amendments that you think that we should be proposing to actually deliver the meaningful reform that you have asked for in your submission.

For absolute transparency, I remind the committee that I am currently a student at the Open University. To jump back very briefly, minister, what progress is the Scottish Government making in establishing parity of esteem in financial support for part-time students?

George Adam put to you the point about international students. The committee has heard that there are Scottish Government figures that say that the cash for each student place is about the same as it was 10 years ago, which is a 19 per cent reduction in real terms. We have also heard that there is a funding shortfall of about £1,500 per student. The National Union of Students Scotland told the committee that that has led to an “overreliance”—that is the NUS’s word—on cross-subsidy by international students. What is the Scottish Government’s response to that and will anything change as a result of the budget?

First of all, minister, I will interrogate a couple of the points that have just been put to you.

On the widening access agenda, Scottish Government analysis suggests that the reduction in the higher education resource budget will actually prejudice that agenda. This committee has heard from the commissioner for fair access that there are fears about the 2026 interim target. What is the Scottish Government doing to monitor the effect of that reduction in the post-school budget on widening access for students from certain backgrounds?

This meeting is about pre-budget scrutiny and John Mason began by asking you whether universities are financially sound. You said that you are working with universities to give them a sustainable future. I have a quick question to get the answer on the record. Do you accept that, as it is currently structured, there is a shortfall in higher education financing?

I am grateful for that response—and I have no doubt that we could trade such views—but the committee has heard from a number of witnesses that, noting the shortfall from Government, which I examined earlier, and the exposure to international fluctuations, which we have also considered, various possible solutions and models could be explored to maximise the opportunity within the current Scottish Government budget. Is the Scottish Government open to considering modified funding models with a view to optimisation, or is it closed-minded to such investigation? Will the Government carry on with what you have just acknowledged is a suboptimal model?